Page 90 - Oswald Ducrot, Slovenian Lectures, Digitalna knjižnica/Digital Library, Dissertationes 6
P. 90
Slovenian Lectures
costs almost a thousand francs”, and so on. As I said, I am restricting my
study to almost modifying expressions of a quantitative type.
First, what is the usual description (that is to say, as you have guessed,
the one which I am then going to reject)? The usual description consists in
saying that almost X indicates a quantity inferior to the quantity indicated
by X: almost X is a little less than X. The description seems altogether rea-
sonable, at first. If you ask what the price of a book is and I answer “It costs
almost a hundred francs”, you immediately draw the conclusion that it must
cost ninety or ninety-five francs. If you ask me what time it is and I say “It’s
almost six o’clock”, you draw the conclusion that it must be slightly before
six o’clock, for example five to six. Or again, if you ask how long my lecture
is going to last, my answer “It’s going to last almost another ten minutes”
suggests that it is going to last seven or eight minutes. So, to describe almost
X as meaning a quantity a little inferior to X does seem reasonable. In doing
that, one thinks one has characterized almost in a purely factual, truth-func-
tional way, without bringing in any argumentative notions.
Unfortunately, things, I fear, are far less simple than that: I have noticed
quite a large number of examples in which almost X indicates a quantity
which is superior to X; in which almost X means (if one can use the word
mean to say that) more than X. I am going to give a few examples, and then
I shall try to deal with them using the notion of topos. At a time when the
dollar was going down enormously in France, I remember reading in the pa-
pers: “The dollar is almost down to five francs” (there was an economic cri-
sis in the U.S.A. at the time, and the dollar was going down every day). In
that context, “The dollar is almost at five francs” meant that it was worth a
few centimes more than five francs: so, it meant “more than five francs”. I
take another example. I have an appointment with a friend at 8 o’clock. My
friend arrives at ten past eight, and I start getting angry with him, because
I consider he is making me lose my time. He can very well answer: “Ah,
don’t start getting angry with me. After all, it’s almost eight!”, and his “it’s
almost eight” in that case is ten past eight, that is to say a little bit more than
eight. Last example, an example I have experienced recently. Imagine a car,
in which there are three persons. At the front, there is Mr X, the driver and,
next to him, Mrs X. Behind them, there is a passenger. The passenger, it so
happens, is me. Mr X and Mrs X were taking that passenger to a perform-
ance of a play, which the three persons all wanted to see. Negligently, Mr X
had forgotten to take some petrol and also to map out the route. Whence
this reproach from Mrs X to her husband: “We’re going to be late because
of you”. Thereupon Mr X answers: “Not at all, we’ll be there on time. The
costs almost a thousand francs”, and so on. As I said, I am restricting my
study to almost modifying expressions of a quantitative type.
First, what is the usual description (that is to say, as you have guessed,
the one which I am then going to reject)? The usual description consists in
saying that almost X indicates a quantity inferior to the quantity indicated
by X: almost X is a little less than X. The description seems altogether rea-
sonable, at first. If you ask what the price of a book is and I answer “It costs
almost a hundred francs”, you immediately draw the conclusion that it must
cost ninety or ninety-five francs. If you ask me what time it is and I say “It’s
almost six o’clock”, you draw the conclusion that it must be slightly before
six o’clock, for example five to six. Or again, if you ask how long my lecture
is going to last, my answer “It’s going to last almost another ten minutes”
suggests that it is going to last seven or eight minutes. So, to describe almost
X as meaning a quantity a little inferior to X does seem reasonable. In doing
that, one thinks one has characterized almost in a purely factual, truth-func-
tional way, without bringing in any argumentative notions.
Unfortunately, things, I fear, are far less simple than that: I have noticed
quite a large number of examples in which almost X indicates a quantity
which is superior to X; in which almost X means (if one can use the word
mean to say that) more than X. I am going to give a few examples, and then
I shall try to deal with them using the notion of topos. At a time when the
dollar was going down enormously in France, I remember reading in the pa-
pers: “The dollar is almost down to five francs” (there was an economic cri-
sis in the U.S.A. at the time, and the dollar was going down every day). In
that context, “The dollar is almost at five francs” meant that it was worth a
few centimes more than five francs: so, it meant “more than five francs”. I
take another example. I have an appointment with a friend at 8 o’clock. My
friend arrives at ten past eight, and I start getting angry with him, because
I consider he is making me lose my time. He can very well answer: “Ah,
don’t start getting angry with me. After all, it’s almost eight!”, and his “it’s
almost eight” in that case is ten past eight, that is to say a little bit more than
eight. Last example, an example I have experienced recently. Imagine a car,
in which there are three persons. At the front, there is Mr X, the driver and,
next to him, Mrs X. Behind them, there is a passenger. The passenger, it so
happens, is me. Mr X and Mrs X were taking that passenger to a perform-
ance of a play, which the three persons all wanted to see. Negligently, Mr X
had forgotten to take some petrol and also to map out the route. Whence
this reproach from Mrs X to her husband: “We’re going to be late because
of you”. Thereupon Mr X answers: “Not at all, we’ll be there on time. The
